Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-06-23
JAKE SHARP'S TRIAL.
THE LAWYERS wRANGLE OVER THE TBS-
TlN0NI OF WAITE.
Lawyer Bright On the Stand-Wn. 4. Miller Test
fss as 10 How He Received 5000 in
$1,000 $500 and 500 Bills and
How He Gave il Back.

NEW YORK, June 22.-The Sharp trial
to-day opened with tilt between Mr.. Par
sons, counsel for the defense, and ex. Alder
man Waite.
Waite said that Mr.. Parsons was present
at n meeting of the Aldermanic Railroad
Committee on August 5th, 1884, when the
claims of the Broadway road were urged.
Mr.. Parsons denied. that he was there,
but Waite maintained that he was, and o
lively interchange of contradictions took
place. Waite was under croSs-examina-
ton.
Ex-Alderman Miller, another OF the
ssboodlers, was led into e0nrt by sDetec-
tive Schuyler, to be in readiness to appear
as a witness.
Lawyer Bright was recalled. He testi-
fed to the proposed plan being submitted
to his firm by Mr.. Sharp and Mr.. Foshay
and was elaborated by them. He drew the
mortgage TO secure the bonds after consul
tation with client. He refused to answer
interrogations about clients business.
Mr.. Parsons arose and said Mr.. Sharp
absolved the witness from any results
which might follow the disclosute of any
conversation between the witness and him.
SELF
THAT may be all very WELL" responded
the witness, ''but Mr.. Sharp cannot speak
for one that is dead referring to Foshay)
or for Others. / must still decline to an
swer"
.'Have you anything which you wish to
conceal?" asked Assistant District At
torney Nicoll.
''On the contrary" the witness replied,
| am anxious to tell frankly all l know
excepting so far rs breaking faith with
my clients is concerned"
Ex-Recorder Smyth, counsel for Ex-
Alderman Miller, said to-day that his
client had not turned States evidence,
but that he had been subpGnaed by the
prosecution to testify in the case.
In his evidence Lawyer Bright admitted
that he
HAD DRAWN Up VARIOUS DOCUMENTS
passed by the Council in connection with
the Broadway road franchise, and that he
went TO the house of Judge Bartlett, Of
the Supreme Court, at eight o'clock of the
night before the morning of the meeting
of the Aldermen, and secured from him an
order dissolying the injunction which re-
strained the Board from granting the
franchise. Lyddy was the man who had
procured the injunction, and witness
showed Judge Bartlett the evidence of
Lyddy's consent to its dissolution. In ex-
planning the firms relations with Maloney
he said they only knew him as the clerk of
the Railroad Committee. Nothing ever
passed between them except what they
thought right and proper. He visited their
Office openly and without concealment
The witness knew Of no reason why his
offices should be signalled as the head
quarters of q conspiracy to bribe the
alderman Of 1884, nor why himself and
Mr.. Scribner should be pronounced men,
bers of that conspiracy. Neither he nor
his firm, he said, had anything to do with
the call for the early meeting of aldermen.
HOW HE WAS BRIBED.
VIM. II. Miller, who was a member of
the Railroad Committee of the Board of
Aldermen of 1884, was then called, and
took the stand. He testified that he voted
for the franchise, and Mr.. Nicoll then
asked him if he received anything after
the meeting from DeLacey, another of the
who is now in Canada, and
Miller answered:
81 received s., 900 from DeLacey at his
house after the passage Of the franchise, in
81 900, $500 and 500 bills"
Afterwards he understood that money
was paid him under some arrangement
made with the Aldermen, and he went to
DeLacey and told him he would give the
money back to him and would not keep it.
lam glad, the witness added, 10 have
the opportunity to clear myself of the
stigma that has attached to me-" After
hearing some further unimportant testi-
al